By Paul Homewood
I came across this work by a climate activist from 2021:
As you can see, he is getting very worked up about “climate disinformation” in social media. His study goes on to analyse where all of this supposed disinformation is coming from.
But I have a simple question for Mr Pogson – what do you classify as “disinformation”?
Could it be this, for instance?
This was posted on Facebook in 2019 by the professional group, Friends of Science. The post concerned an article by the Volunteer Firefighters Association in New South Wales, which reported on all of the forest mismanagement and the role this had played in the wildfires there that year.
Following a “factcheck”, all you get now when you click on the link is this:
https://www.facebook.com/FoSClimateEd/posts/2627494517329381
There was nothing unfactual in the article, never mind false, and it was written by experts. It was taken down for the simple reason that it did not support the claims of climate alarmists.
Or maybe, Mr Pogson, it might be this sort of Facebook post which is all too common nowadays:
It is totally untrue that weather emergencies are on the rise, whether climate related or not. Yet we see junk like this posted everyday on social media.
For some reason it is never “factchecked”.
Pogson’s conclusions give the game away. It was never about “facts” or “truth”, it is about “politics”, and censoring inconvenient truths:
I always admire people who can wade through that kind of word salad to challenge it.
Someone should do a study on the prose style of activists authors and how they use it to discourage scrutiny. I am sure they don’t write like that to convey meaning.
[Edit: I should make clear I am referring the Pogson article.]
“that kind of word salad”
Countering disinformation is vital to avoid adverse effects on opinions and behaviour.
I think the meaning of this is quite clear. They are afraid people might be persuaded to a different point of view; and that would never do. In the post-modern scientific paradigm facts and truths come way behind emotions, feelings, and lived experience.
The Union of Concerned Scientists
“How to Stop Disinformation
…
Be patient with people in your life who have bought into and are amplifying disinformation. Often, they’re reacting from fear or other negative emotions. If you’re up for it, and you think you can have a good-faith conversation, you can try to talk through the emotions behind their choices—without judgment or shaming. “
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-stop-disinformation
The mindhead professions are cashing in on anxiety etc. What do they say?
“Social media and other Internet companies need to be more careful. For example, YouTube should not cue up videos with information that is known to be false and Google really should help move that information into the hard to find corners of the Internet. Journalists also play a role. They should be careful about what information they promote and not simply repeat information.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mental-mishaps/201907/can-we-stop-the-spread-misinformation
They all say the narrative must be protected and promoted.
The boiling oceans explain the movement of people to our Southern states like Florida and Texas. Makes preparing pasta that much easier.
To say nothing of all the ready-to-eat shellfish now available! My biggest concern is what will happen to all the sushi chefs now with no raw fish!
I love boiled lobster but last time I was in New England it was not available directly from the ocean and surprisingly a few people were swimming in the ocean.
Sounds like every alarmist I have ever dealt with.
A so-called fact-checker is a narrative compliance checker. Does the article/story etc match up with scripture on things like sea level rise, the ice caps and glaciers, extreme weather, wildfires etc And does it promote alarm. Any rational consideration of other possibilities goes straight down the memory hole.
So, when you see “fact-check” you know what to expect – a defence of the narrative; with authority.
Pogson might have a number of readers for adverts he disapproves of, but he has no idea of how many rejected or accepted tem. None at all.
But he knows what he likes.
Fact checker = Fact choker
A number of so called fact checkers are still claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop story is just Russian misinformation. Despite the fact that Hunter has confirmed that the laptop was his.
Many of the same people are also still claiming that Russian collusion in the 2016 election actually happened.
I spent an hour or so the other day playing around with Chatgpt. I asked it about a number of CACC claims and got responses that might well have been plagiarized from SkepticalScience of Desmog.org. When I responded by saying that none of the claims I asked about were contained in the IPCC ARs it apologized and reiterated that the claims are supported by expert consensus and the overwhelming amount of peer reviewed literature. I then asked it to describe how science is done and it came back with a pretty good response that Richard Feynman would probably accept. I then asked it to describe “argument from authority” and got a good text book answer. I then asked it its answer to my previous questions were based on science or argument from authority and once again got an argument from authority response. Then I got tired of going around in circles.
I wonder if Alan Turing worried that efforts to create a sentient-seeming AI would end up creating the artificial equivalent of a CNN media personality.
Reminds me of the David Burge tweet from 2014: “Journalism is covering a story- with a pillow until it stops moving.”
Paul Homewood, a retired accountant, is the best UK climate science and energy writer, IMHO. Proving that we need more retired accountants writing about climate science, and fewer Ph.D. climate scientists. This article was the 21st climate and energy article I read and recommended today — I started reading a few hours ago. Honest Climate Science and Energy
I lived through 40 years of global warming from 1975 to 2015 and we had some local warming here in Michigan from 2015 to 2023, and we loved it. No Ph.D. scientists or climate confuser games can change our reality.
Leftists own the climate propaganda
But the leftists do not control the climate
We have 43 years of wrong climate predictions, since the 1979 Charney Report, of rapid, dangerous CAGW that never showed up. They have the tough job of keeping the wrong predictions going.
It’s Climate Reality versus always wrong Climate Howling
I’m happy to be on the Climate reality side
We will win in the end because they can’t control the climate
Who wants to be a leftist Climate Howler Global Whiner anyway?
Only losers: Leftist politicians with huge carbon footprints and their flock of leftist trained parrot useful idiots (with no offense intended toward trained parrots, or idiots)
“we need more retired accountants writing about climate science”
I switch my major from math, to psychology to history to accounting to forestry. My one semester in accounting- I took a very intense introductory course in the subject. Though I didn’t stick with that major, I deeply appreciated the logic of accountants- because, they must account for everything! Without accountants, no business would know how it’s doing. Even some intangible assets like “good will” are accounted for on the books. And accountants know how to write off bad investments. Their methods would be very constructive in the energy wars but the greens wouldn’t like such an approach. Unknowns or barely understood values would have to be accounted for along with risk, rapid depreciation of valuable assets, putting values on the benefits of more CO2 such as the greening of the Earth and damage to the landscape and wildlife would have to be counted. Instead, they pitch “clean and green renewable energy” as scripture not to be challenged. My conclusion is that an accountant can tell us the benefit/cost of any policy better than most people.
With all those arrows in your quiver, you probably need an agent!
Arrows?
Quiver?
Agent?
Is that projection?
Yes, like engineers, they deal with reality, ledgers, balance of money, matter and energy. Yet, everyone is subject to the incessant brainwashing operations of the day and questions that cannot be asked or even considered.
So, absurdity abounds nevertheless.
An architect told that in the ancient world- when they were building a stone arch- when it was time to install the lintel at the top- the builder would often have to stand under it so if it failed he’d be the first to know. Not sure if that’s a true story but it makes sense- builders/engineers had better get it right. Climate scientists may not be proven wrong until they’re long gone.
Like the possibly apocraphal tale of airplane mechanics having to be aboard on the first shakedown flight.
Not entirely apocryphal. I restore/inspect airplanes and test fly everyone of them myself. Unlike the nut zero wackos who don’t seem to want to live the way they want others to live.
Albeit the first day in my MBA program we were warned that despite popular perception accounting is NOT a precise practice.
After 35 years managing manufacturing operations I saw the proof of that.
How overhead is treated among products is a way to make the relative costs say what you want. (But yes, the totals have to balance in the end.)
Your conclusion is of course correct; despite the malleability of the results, an accountant can immediately spot the movement of the pea.
Au contraire. The author of this exposition must have a very good grasp of accounting and numbers in general in view of his position: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3209620/climate-change-selfish-humans-are-biggest-threat-their-own-existence?module=opinion&pgtype=homepage
Andrew Sheng is a former central banker and financial regulator, currently distinguished fellow at the Asia Global Institute, University of Hong Kong. He writes widely on Asian perspectives on global issues, with columns in Project Syndicate, Asia News Network and Caijing/Caixin magazines. His latest book is “Shadow Banking in China”, co-authored with Ng Chow Soon, published by Wiley.
reply to nailheadtom
Sheng says:
All these explain why governments and corporations find it hard to change. However, communities that face the consequences of climate change, such as those hurt by forest fires, rising seas, food shortages, water pollution and so on, are more driven to work together when they identify common threats.
Here he’s not thinking like an accountant- he’s thinking like all climate alarmists who presume there is a climate emergency- then he speculates why the responses to it are not as he’d like. He says there are forest fires, rising seas, blah, blah, blah- as if those facts prove anything other than such things have occured for ages. He doesn’t want people to work together to identify threats- he wants everyone to sing the song of climate hysteria. When I mentioned the ways of accountants I didn’t mean to imply accountants have any clue about “the climate”- only that they think logically, which is how “climate science” must advance- but reputable climate scientists are brushed aside as careerists promote this new religion, as the very powerful wind and solar industries say they will save the planet, as the needs of poorer people worldwide to improve their lives are ignored, as we look at the infamous climategate scandal. A true accounting of this “climate war” will ignore nothing. So, “accounting” is a good metaphor.
I got the impression that you felt that accountants or people with a affinity for numbers would be more likely to have a realistic view of climate science since they think logically.
Accountants despise estimates and they can not tolerate anyone suggesting a guess.
Bogus numbers from budgetary sources and people like Malthus, Paul Ehrlich, democrats scare accountants.
Just like alarmists despise proper accounting.
Spot on, Mr. Greene. So tired of the “climate howlers”. Close akin to the fellow in rags standing on the street corners bellowing “the end is nigh”. Hopefully, now we can get down to serious discussion about means to rid ourselves and the world of fanatical climate doomsayers.
Probably not, their obviously false predictions over the decades has proven to not bear fruit, so they will just shift to something else to bellow about. I fear the only thing which will end their rantings will be ferreting out the last of them and causing them to quit stealing the oxygen and creating CO2. Figuratively speaking, of course.
The circus needs to be shut down and driven out of town, dismantling all the trappings of same. Shame them with facts and let the evidence speak for itself.
Just sayin’.
“Probably not, their obviously false predictions over the decades has proven to not bear fruit, so they will just shift to something else to bellow about.:
It’s easier to gain more political power and control when there is a boogeyman to scare people. Scared people demand that their government do something. And that is exactly what leftists politicians want to hear.
Fundamental transformation comes after gaining that power and control. Transformation requires ruining what actually works, such as electric grids, so that lots of people want a new economic system. And that new system will be some form of totalitarianism — fascism or Marxism.
So it doesn’t matter that the coming climate crisis is fake — it only matters that lots of people believe it’s coming. Saving the world from an imaginary climate crisis is a secular religion. No climate belief or climate prediction is falsifiable. Every wrong climate prediction is censored by the mass media.
If not the climate change boogeyman, then there would be another boogeyman. Covid worked for a while. Maybe the Russian / Putin boogeyman would replace the climate boogeyman if it loses its effect after too many cold years, and too many wrong “it’s worse than we thought” claims in a row?
I am personally hoping for a new leftist boogeyman because the coming climate change crisis is lame and boring. I’d like an imaginary coming “invasion of aliens from Uranus” — that would be scary. A lot worse than an invasion of aliens from Mexico. I imagine them landing in Washington DC, as in the movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, and demanding to see our leaders, Jumpin’ Joe Biden and Kamala “the word salad queen” Harris. After that meeting they’d probably never return to earth again!
I really want to see a climate change episode of the twitter files. I have no doubt that would be enlightening.
Seeing some of the twitter exec’s getting grilled in congress was interesting viewing. The left-leaning elitist gatekeepers thought they were untouchable, but the tables have turned.
Facebook and other social media outlets need to take heed, or at least start purging their slack channels.
The theatre is quite good but sincerity is difficult to discern.
Twitter recently shut down the account of a conservative legislator after he posted a picture of himself, his wife, and an antelope she had just shot.
The excuse given was that the picture was an example of gratuitous violence.
Unfortunately, the group invited to review the Twitter files didn’t go there. As much as I appreciate The Free Press and Bari Weiss’s efforts in many areas, she is still a cheerleader for the climapocalypse and will not allow this sort of article.
Their actions prove it is not science, simply religious dogma.
Now, if we could just get the “true believers” to imbibe a “Jonestown cocktail”. Perhaps, the “vaccines” will do the job for us. Sad, but true, those potions seem to be working on lefties, mostly.
Just sayin’.
Less about suppressing inconvenient truth, more about promulgating a most convenient lie…
One inconvenient truth is that colored people are better adapted by nature to warmer climates than are white people.
Thus by trying to prevent global warming white people are continuing a program of racial oppression. Keeping the planet cold to advantage white people in a racist, neocolonial attempt to repress the colored people of the world.
One only need look at the leaders of the climate change narrative. By and large they are exclusively white
They are not so well adapted to water sports.
Almost anyone can be taught how to swim.
They can, so how do you explain the lack of black Olympian swimmers? There have been a couple, but they are a very tiny minority.
What causes that? Don’t quote racism…
Buoyancy of African black and European white maleshttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28561485/
It would be interesting to see how many are in the special
forces in the navy based on race eg UDT/SEALS. During my
time whenever there was a port call with a diving opportunity
there was a group of us who went out. I don’t recall any blacks
in that group, but they would have been welcome.
How do you explain the lack of “white” NFL cornerbacks?
As I have told my 3 boys (all now of a Liberal strain) sometimes the answer is “We just don’t know”.
Or maybe we prefer not to know.
It’s strange that genetic traits these days are denied.
At one time, the
Best golfer was Black / Asian: Tiger Woods
Best rapper was White: Eminem
Best female tennis player ever was Black: Serena Williams
My favorite economist is Black: Thomas Sowell
My favorite 1970s musician was Black / White: Bob Marley
You can’t forget Walter Williams, also black.
Second best economiist, IMHO.
Margaret Court is the best tennis player.
She has conservative views so she gets cancelled.
You tax monies are at work for global warming.
Geoff S
Serena Williams would have defeated Margaret Court if they ever played a match. Easily. \
Serena is the best female tennis player ever, not just the best in the period when she was competing, as court was. The number of grand slam titles is not a perfect indicator.
Court holds the record for grand slam singles titles with 24, one ahead of Williams. But it is Williams who is usually described as the greatest player of all time. The Australian played mostly in the amateur era, but she believes life on tour is easier now.
It’s a cultural phenomena, just like tennis, it’s not a popular sport within black communities. There are obvious exceptions of blacks excelling in tennis.
Genetically, given the right circumstances, I would expect that blacks could excel in swimming, especially in sprint events.
Scissor,
The modern approach to swimming would be scientific studies showing pool chlorine bleaches black skins to white.
And a big % of the population would believe it. Sad.
Geoff S
More money possible to be earned in basketball, baseball and football
There is also a lack of black people in professional baseball and a lack of white people in professional basketball.
It’s a cultural thing.
When I was a teenager I had a White friend who could not swim, In fact, I saved his life when he almost drowned in a swimming pool. I got him out of the pool and with another friend we grabbed his ankles and held him upside down to get the water out of his lungs. Made him promise to never go in water that was over his head. I was not even a good swimmer so I have no idea how I did that. It was the greatest accomplishment in my life. The friend moved to Nevada, and I moved to Michigan, from New York. He located me about 40 years later and sent a thank you e-mail to me in Michigan.
The favorite, by far, White nephew of my Brother in Law, in his 40’s, died in January 2023 while swimming underwater in a swimming pool, The autopsy claimed he must have fainted while underwater, maybe holding his breath too long? It was not a heart attack — his heart was in great shape. Sad.
Growing up in a working class Michigan city, I didn’t really learn how to swim until gym class in junior high. We had to swim nude. It wasn’t until high school when swim trunks were provided.
On more than a few occasions, unlucky guys were pushed out through one of the exits.
The wife from Michigan tells me how boys swam nude a long time ago, and me, four years younger and from New York, always found that hard to believe. I guess it is true. My NY rural high school had an indoor swimming pool but no one swam nude. I wish the girls did and I would have volunteered as a chlorine tester.
We don’t say colored people any more
That is a no-no — racism– boo, hiss
Now we say people of color
What difference does that make, since they mean the same thing? One gets you called a racist, and other is good per leftist language police.
People of color is silly, however, since all people have a color, except for ghosts.
A somewhat related article that I read and recommended today:
The inherent racism of climate change activism – American Thinker
Due Diligence;
My ancestors are from Russia so the cold doesn’t bother me much. The wife’s ancestors are from Greece, and she likes heat. Her old Mother used to set her thermostat at 76 to 78 degrees in her senior citizen apartment. When visiting her in the winter, I’d crack open a window and sit next to it to avoid sweating.
My ancestors are all from northern Europe, my wife is Mexican. I know what you mean.
She also hates it when the air gets humid.
“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.”
Joseph Goebbels
Now there was an expert they all claim not to follow
And yet they seem to follow his book to the letter.
In my opinion, the legality of conducting psychological operations on citizenry needs to be repealed.
Nothing to do with facts. The guys are the modern-day Spanish Inquisition.
I’m not a big Tucker Carlson fan but he did a great opening monologue 2/10/2023 about the climate change religion for atheists. TUCKER CARLSON: Climate is now our state religion | Fox News (story tip)
People like Al Gore, who nearly flunked out of college and runs indoctrination mills to spread his uninformed version of climate science, are operating out of faith not facts.
This is why it is so hard to bring a logical argument to the debate stage with these guys. The inspiring fervor of the self-flagellating pilgrim versus boring old real facts and logic. Faith wins every time because it feels so right. Like that old phrase from Pogo – “We have met the enemy and he is us!” The ancient problem of sin and redemption in a new robe.
The battle of facts versus fiction over climate change was won long ago, when the leaked emails became public. Now it is a battle of faith versus facts, and faith often wins just because it is easier to understand.
I’m an atheist
if climate change is your religion, I don’t think the term atheist really fits
Al “the climate blimp” Gore, John “why the long face?” Kerry and Greta “thundering” Thunberg are your “gods” (That’s a sad batch of gods, like the Three Stooges of Climate Change)
The IPCC Summary is your bible
CO2 is your Satan
Your hell is here on Earth, after100 years of global warming
Just my two cents.
Beliefs without proof can be religious or secular.
wrong
the article claimed
the bushfires [in Australia] were caused by arsonists and a series of lightning strikes, not ‘climate change’
the fact checkers found this misleading which it is
DETAILS
Misrepresents a complex reality: While authorities in Australia are investigating the source of some of the bushfires, this does not preclude other factors from being important for some aspects of these fires. For instance, the magnitude of wildfires is controlled primarily by the conditions of the fuels.
Unsupported: : The claim that these fires are due to high arson activity is not supported by evidence. Less than one percent of the land burnt in New South Wales and Victoria has been attributed to arson so far.
this underlies a problem with almost all skeptics
they dont read
You don’t need to read the instructions to know how to strike a match.
You might wish to begin using AI to correct your writing.
Forest fires are almost always (85% to 90%) caused by humans, not by nature.
Please explain how a slight change in the average temperature would cause humans to accidentally, or deliberately, start more fires.
Prove that Australian rainfall declined with their warming — none in the past 10 years by the way –, which is the opposite of rising global rainfall while the planet is warming.
Prive that Australian fuel that is ALREADY dry in the fire season could get any drier. Or shut up.
It is still a fact that there is no trend in the number and size of wild fires.
BTW, I love the way you shift time scales, criticizing comments about a past fire season with a comment about the current one.
Beyond that, you are aware that they don’t attribute fires to anything, especially criminal activity, until after an investigation. The current season is still ongoing and the investigations are not complete, so your data about what conclusions regarding the current fire season are at best premature.
All across the world, the worst fire seasons on record all occurred decades ago, but are completely ignored by those like you, who are primarily concerned with pushing an agenda, not the facts.
Moshism
Mosh = Gross gormlessmess.
That is pure propaganda Steve. Even if we’re exaggerating about the arson claim (highly doubt it), the most important takeaway from this is that climate change is unlikely to be the main culprit. If large fires can happen in Siberia on its own, then it can definitely happen in places like California and New South Wales, even at their coldest possible climate. These forests are not well managed; something even they have admitted.
A quick google search reveals less than 10% of bushfires are started by nature. The remainder being accidental 30%, deliberate or suspicious 50% and the remaining 10% from spot fires and other causes…. What say you to that.
You are all crap Mosh .
Just go back say 84 years to the 1930s .
The worst fires and the greatest loss of life was in Victoria in January 1939.
71 people died and over 650 buildings were destroyed.
During December and January over 2 million hectares was burnt .
How do you spin that Mosh .Climate change ?
It was warm back then and there is plenty of evidence that a lot of places were warmer in the thirties than now .
Where’s all the bushfires the last couple of years, mosh?
Trying to make a single year’s WEATHER into a climate change issue is MORONIC
But its what you do.. because you are.
The real problem is that we now have 2-3 years of above average rainfall due to NATURAL La Ninas
That will mean that bushland growth will be lush and fast… until the next dry year.
Then there will obviously be bush-fires, that will be blamed on “climate change” by the CC morons that you support.. !
You KNOW its nothing to do with “climate change”..
… its the NATURAL CLIMATE of Australia.
But that won’t stop your moronic claims, will it.
I have seen a sharp INCREASE in FB ads touting Climate hysteria, backed up by “because we say so”.
My favorite however was one that proclaimed that renewables were our future and all that was required was an INVENTION!
An imagination would be even better.
Or in modern parlance, an “ambition”.
When did straight talk die?
Geoff S
“You’ll think of something, Mr. Rearden!”
Isn’t it some revered old tribal custom to pitch flaming pine cones at motormouthed witch doctors like this one? He’s as good at projecting his own untruths as Adam Schiff. I sure wouldn’t want him censoring social media the way Twitter did before Elon Musk allowed the spilling of the beans.
Judging the climate fanatics according to scientific standards is always disappointing. Understanding them according the the rules of political terrorism is the only way to make any sense of this. In the climate debate, science is replaced by anecdote and future casting, misinformation is a label used for inconvenient truths, and virtue is adherence to dogma no matter how much in conflict with reality.
When he says “political action is required” he means “people should be forcibly silenced.”
You guys may take this as a lose or something to worry about, but I think the contrary is true. No doubt the pressure on them is building up.
I have no words. Pogson looks to Facebook for enlightenment? Pogson demands Facebook to be the gatekeeper of truth and knowledge? I have no words to explain that kind of brainwashed drivel.
I rejected Facebook in its first few weeks and now do not use any social media.
Surprise? Reading about numerous problems of users, I am sure I came out well ahead.
Who of sane mind volunteers to join mobs bent on being hostile to them?
The old story “I keep hitting my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.”
Geoff S
Eisshhh…
Too many inconvenient truths….
An Inconvenient Truth | Bread on the water
The image showing relative sizes of the sun and the earth appears as reasonably truthful for that part. What’s wrong with that is using that to support a claim that the sun is the main driver of climate change. Solar activity has had a downward trend after the peak of the peak solar cycle of the Modern Maximum in the late 1950s. This downward trend of solar activity has been especially true since the sunspot peak of ~1990.
It seems to be a common misconception that the sun can only affect our climate if it puts out more heat?
Everything I’ve read recently posits that the weakening sun allows other factors to increase influence of clouds and other major factors, therefore the sun definitely is the major driver.
A journalist called Seymour Hersch
Spoke the truth and was left in the lurch
By political violence
Of media silence
From a West getting knocked off its perch
The pic
Pogson wrote:
“….the problem is largely political, and political action is required not only to return climate science to being a bipartizan issue….”
Real science is always totally disinterested in parties and is dedicated purely to the pursuit of impartial truth. By its nature, it could never be ‘bipartizan’ but is only ever non-partizan. Anyone who believes it needs to be bi-partizan does not know what real science actually is and has got it mixed up with politics in their mind. I think such fundamental-level confusion automatically disqualifies them from being able to pass judgment on other people’s scientific statements correctly.